My chief concern is that when anyone expresses a contrary view, whether it is on religious, or like our PM - sociocultural grounds - they are abused and labelled as homophobic and intolerant.As it's commonly used I don't think it's a phobia; at least not under any medical definition of the term. Although it's conceivable that a person might have an actual phobia like this, it's typically used as an ad hominem tactic, name-calling rather than an actual argument. I'm pleased to see an article on Online Opinion calling it for what it is, without condoning the arguments made by opponents of homosexual civil rights. Some amusing retorts from the article:
They are notorious for using specious arguments that really have little validity. The main ones are slippery slope arguments (what next – marrying dogs?), moral danger (what next – legalising paedophilia?) and natural order (marriage is for procreation). These really have almost no evidential basis.But go and read it for yourself. What's key here is the appeal to have an actual debate using facts and arguments, not name-calling.